Saturday, March 23, 2013

SF Chronicle announces New Pay Wall; Will Readers Pay for 'Unique Content?'; Early Reaction is Negative

If you want to read the columnists at the SF Chronicle, at-least on line, it's going to cost you. The newspaper announced Saturday a new pay wall--essentially, SFChronicledotcom will be free, minus "unique content", presumably popular columnists like Matier and Ross, Mark Morford, Scott Ostler and Debra Saunders. That element of the web site, in addition to breaking news, sports, features, etc. will cost users $12 a month. Current subscribers to the paper and its digital edition will get the premium site free of charge.

This is a risky move for the Chronicle. Initial reader reaction was mostly negative and many stated they would not buy the premium site. Paywalls, like the one the Chronicle plans to launch, are already a part of editions of the NY Times and Wall St. Journal.

22 comments:

If it was a top-notch paper, sure, I'd pay. If it's a choice between the Chron and Merc, and the Merc starts to charge, then the Chron because the Merc is even more of a joke and its sports is a step below the Chron's, and it's sports that I read the most locally. However, I would only pay because I had to. Neither are quality newspapers. Just keep a list for a week or two of all the typos. If I want real news, I go to The Guardian, Der Spiegel and Al Jazeera. Real journalism in America, has for the most part, morphed into "newstainment." Signed a veteran radio and print journalist.

Der Spiegel is not bad. Have read on occasion.Also try The Daily Beast.Hands down they have the best web layout of any news website.Striking photographs in rich color. They are the Life mazagine of the the web era.The only problem . . . they can be a little liberal.

Is the Chronicle kidding?Here is what we say to them. Good luck!It's bad enough that newspaper has become the mouth piece to the San Francisco Giants, now this? If they think their content is that unique, they have not heard of the internet.There are just too many sources of free content online.I will read my 18 year neighbor's blog for the days news before I give a nickel to that newspaer.

When the sports section of that rag became a subsidiary of the SF Giants..I stopped reading that fake paper. Its the old story of-the more desperate the company gets to stay in business,the more they become of what they should not be..and that just hurry's the downward spiral.Jezzsus, Eastbay Express is more like real news then the Chron.S

Like everything else in the tech era, the giants swallow up the small, or the old giants get swallowed because they didn't adapt fast enough. Ever heard of the yellow pages? your kid will not have.

Of course this won't be successful for them because they're too late in the game. Those who may have been willing to pay for something already are, and it won't be the Chron. Had they tried this years ago, maybe they'd succeed, but I don't see it happening now, even though the subscription model for different media is proving successful for many.

At the same time, it doesn't cost them anything to do it. The majority of the online content will be free, minus a few columns. I buy the paper because I like reading Chip Johnson's column, but don't think I'd subscribe online.

I agree, the sports section is not too great, especially when sports is the easiest info to find on the web.

It's not a matter of the Chron coming too late to the game. Apple game to a lot of "games" too late but now owns many of them. It's more a matter of we're drowning in content already, most of it for free--I don't have time to read what I can get for nothing now. Now, paywalls will work IF your content is unique and compelling, but theirs is the bland of the bland. I frequent a certain large coffee shop with lots of tables and lots of customers. There are always Chronicles lying on those tables or in the baskets by the door. Nobody even glances at them and at the end of the day the baristas wrap their garbage and coffee grinds in them. More people even read the alternative papers, because they have material for a certain niche. I can get Chronicle-type content anywhere, for free.

Yes, I would. And I have tried, it's called making a living. I'm a content provider and I'd like to think people, some people, god forbid, PAY to read my content just as I, yes, PAY to read content, (like the NY Times); the premise of your question makes it sound like I'm supposed to feel guilty. I do not. In my case, I rely on readers donations and limited advertising.

By virtue of reading nearly all the reader response, and the fact that that the Chronicle tried this before and it failed.

I don't begrudge them for charging money for content...and in fact, I hope they succeed, but there's so much free content on the web that many people might not pay even a modest monthly fee to read their product.

Why is everyone up in arms about a paywall? I'm as shocked as you all are but not because of what SF Chronicle is doing but that you people think its so bad.

They provide a service. We should pay for it. This idea that shit should be free makes no sense. The service they provide incurs cost. They have expenses. If you want to partake of these services, YOU SHOULD HAVE TO FUCKING PAY! Who do you guys think you are?

I pay for the WSJ - $28 every month. When I want to buy a song, I pay for it. I spend maybe $10/month on iTunes. If Rich came up with a very simple way to pay a reasonable rate for content here, I might consider doing it. I frequent this site at least 5-7 times during the week and comment when something interest me.

Jim Rome and his Jim Rome insider incurs a cost to be a member. I've decided that as much as I like Jim Rome, I'm not going to pay for his paywall. Businesses and Business owners are ENTITLED TO CHARGE FOR THE SERVICES THEY PROVIDE. It's not fair for us to consume without compensating them. It is our right to pay these cost or not. It's really this simple.

And in the end, everything will work out as it is supposed to. Either the service provider will fail or succeed. They'll lower their pricing, eliminate cost or raise cost based on demand. Things will work out as they are intended to. It's so funny to watch people who otherwise come off like they're living large balk at such a small charge. Typical and not surprising of the bay area. Champagne taste, beer money for many of you.

The "free market economy" has a new/2nd definition, the second being more literal.

If the chron, or any business for that matter, can't put out a product that makes people stand up and take notice (differentiate themselves from other news sources), they're asking the readers to pay for what the advertisers see diminished value in.

You're right though, nothin wrong with being a whore, just don't be a cheap one.

Some people, not all, are looking for and willing to pay for better, or that perception. Others have the "cheap gene" and will never pay regardless.

Time will tell if the readers have the same high opinion of the paper that the chron itself does.

A true paywall didn't really work for the NY Times. They had to modify it to allow 20 articles per month for free.

Chronicle has been decimated by the Hearst Corporation with cutbacks to the staff. The last time ANYBODY there received a Pulitzer for journalism was Deanna Fitzmaurice in 2005 for her photography (as far as I can determine).

They are NOT, in ANY way shape or form worthy of $12/month, and if they keep up the HUGE amount of ads, they should pay their readers. The ad content is truly astounding.

The Chron is bleeding major league money, and they are trying something, anything, to turn that around. I think this paywall is ill conceived, they should offer it free for a week or two to let prospective customers know what they would get, and i don't think their lineup of columnist is strong enough to support this. But what happens if the paper folds? What a void this would create. I would put the whole paper behind a paywall, especially the most popular part, the comments. And no tying it to another site like Facebook. Whatever happens, I wish them luck because we need this newspaper in our community.

I was an addicted Chronicle newspaper reader.Buying the paper every single day. Could not live without it.Until I discovered the web. When you read online news content you control the stories you want to read, not some birdbrain editor.The last time I read a paper edition of the Chronicle was 2006. And do not miss it.